Author
Topic: Using Logic Or Something (Read 575 times)

I wasn't sure where to put this since it is just me trying to organize my thoughts instead of an attempt at creating discussion. But if you do so wish then let it be. Also, any mod can move this to the most appropriate area if they please.

You cannot measure or observe what is not there. You cannot measure or observe God. So God does not exist. Those that try to measure or observe God disagree among themselves with the validity of their claims on which God has acted. So they cannot measure or observe God because God does not exist.

Does this sound about right to any of you?

Logged

But, uh...well there it is."Nothing's a struggle, but everything is a challenge"-AnonHate Is Weakness

I wasn't sure where to put this since it is just me trying to organize my thoughts instead of an attempt at creating discussion. But if you do so wish then let it be. Also, any mod can move this to the most appropriate area if they please.

You cannot measure or observe what is not there. You cannot measure or observe God. So God does not exist. Those that try to measure or observe God disagree among themselves with the validity of their claims on which God has acted. So they cannot measure or observe God because God does not exist.

No, it's not right. Just because you cannot observe something does not mean it does not exist. You may not be able to prove something exists, but that does not mean it does not exist. Existence does not depend on the human capacity to observe something. Sorry.

No, it's not right. Just because you cannot observe something does not mean it does not exist. You may not be able to prove something exists, but that does not mean it does not exist. Existence does not depend on the human capacity to observe something. Sorry.

I'm actually making the statement in reverse. I'm saying you cannot measure or observe God because there is no God to be observed. What you're saying is different in nuance in that God is not there because I haven't observed him. I would agree there that is illogical but if you are looking for a bear and find nothing where it is stated to be, then you can conclude the bear is not there. It's a little different with God as he is supposed to be every where and found no where.

Logged

But, uh...well there it is."Nothing's a struggle, but everything is a challenge"-AnonHate Is Weakness

No, it's not right. Just because you cannot observe something does not mean it does not exist. You may not be able to prove something exists, but that does not mean it does not exist. Existence does not depend on the human capacity to observe something. Sorry.

I'm actually making the statement in reverse. I'm saying you cannot measure or observe God because there is no God to be observed. What you're saying is different in nuance in that God is not there because I haven't observed him. I would agree there that is illogical but if you are looking for a bear and find nothing where it is stated to be, then you can conclude the bear is not there. It's a little different with God as he is supposed to be every where and found no where.

I have "observed" God, but cannot reproduce the experience so I don't make a big deal about it. If a person is color blind, can he say that it is impossible to distinguish between red and green? Can he say that red and green don't exist?

No, it's not right. Just because you cannot observe something does not mean it does not exist. You may not be able to prove something exists, but that does not mean it does not exist. Existence does not depend on the human capacity to observe something. Sorry.

Give me one example please.

Logged

If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” ― Richard P. Feynman'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett

I tend to agree with Arturo but on the the other hand, just because you cannot see the bear, does not prove that there is no bear in the woods.

But we can find the bear if we look and we can see other evidence of the existence of the bear. They shit in the woods after all

And while we might not see any given bear on any given day we could see any bear on any day and we do.

We could search for the bear using helicopters with infra red cameras. We could put motion triggered cameras on animal trails.

But has anybody seen The Flying Spaghetti Monster? No. Has anybody seen Allah? No. Has anybody seen God? No. Has anybody seen any god? No.

There are now billions of cameras on Earth yet not one selfie with any supernatural entity at all ever. God definitely is invisible.

So where are gods footprints?

Logged

If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” ― Richard P. Feynman'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett

As an example of something not being there because of lack of evidence vs a claim for existence.

In a beautiful little village called Drumnadrochit there is a shrine (actually called a museum) to a monster, the Loch Ness Monster. Nessy was first claimed to exist in October 1871. But nobody seriously believes Nessy exists, unless they have an ulterior motive to do so.

In 146 years of active and casual observation there isn't so much as a reliable piece of Nessy poo.

Lots of people claim Nessy exists yet to total lack of reliable evidence shows it is not reasonable to consider Nessy exists and behave as though she does, except for a bit of fun and profit.

Logged

If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” ― Richard P. Feynman'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett

True, but first you have to prove "it is not there". Proving something does not exist in a , supposedly but certainly effectively, infinite system (such as a universe) is not possible without exploring, classifying and measuring every characteristic of everything in the universe, or even universes. Only after that can we produce a definitive list of what is and is not there.

Quote

You cannot measure or observe God.

With our current senses and sensors.

Quote

So God does not exist.

In a physical sense so far as we are able to detect any influence on the currently observable universe.

Quote

Those that try to measure or observe God disagree among themselves with the validity of their claims on which God has acted. So they cannot measure or observe God because God does not exist.

That's their bag, leave it up to them.

So, no measurable evidence of god or any gods, nothing that does not have an explaination in the physical world.

But, if "god" is a mental concept in the minds of some people that modifies their behaviour, for good or bad, is that concept any the less non-existent than love, schizophrenia, depression etc - IIRC all these , including religiosity, are measurable in some way, if only via fMRI.

Thus religion exists and has an effect on this universe, for some the core of that religion is an otherwise imneasurable entity, focus, source or whatever. Once, apart from the profoundity of its affect on the individual, mental illness was not measurable but still considered to exist.

Is "god" a product of induced mental illness? Does mental illness exist? There it might seem "nature" is as important as "existence".

If a mental concept affects the universe as we experience it can be said to "exist" . . .

No, it's not right. Just because you cannot observe something does not mean it does not exist. You may not be able to prove something exists, but that does not mean it does not exist. Existence does not depend on the human capacity to observe something. Sorry.

Give me one example please.

The entire universe before humans came along.

Every star or galaxy before it was "discovered" by humans. Prior to Hubble. Those things existed but could not be observed or measured.

Before Pluto was discovered it could not be observed or measured. It existed, however.

You cannot measure or observe what is not there. You cannot measure or observe God. So God does not exist. Those that try to measure or observe God disagree among themselves with the validity of their claims on which God has acted. So they cannot measure or observe God because God does not exist.

Does this sound about right to any of you?

1. You Cannot measure or observe what is not there.

That is true to an extent but to take it as a true premise we must assume that we have the ability to measure or observe everything that is there. It took a long time to develop the tools to measure or observe germs.

2. You cannot measure or observe God.

I can take that premise as true.

3. So Go does not exist.

You can't logically prove this claim until we are certain that we have developed the tools to be able to measure or observe the existence of said God

Even if premise 1 and 2 are correct, 3 still depends on which God. I will say that it would be folly for scientists to try and create tools to observe or measure God. So for the moment it is logical to assume that God/s do not exist but I don't think it's possible to logically prove something doesn't exist. Even something with the reputation of a god.

No, it's not right. Just because you cannot observe something does not mean it does not exist. You may not be able to prove something exists, but that does not mean it does not exist. Existence does not depend on the human capacity to observe something. Sorry.

I'm actually making the statement in reverse. I'm saying you cannot measure or observe God because there is no God to be observed. What you're saying is different in nuance in that God is not there because I haven't observed him. I would agree there that is illogical but if you are looking for a bear and find nothing where it is stated to be, then you can conclude the bear is not there. It's a little different with God as he is supposed to be every where and found no where.

I have "observed" God, but cannot reproduce the experience so I don't make a big deal about it. If a person is color blind, can he say that it is impossible to distinguish between red and green? Can he say that red and green don't exist?

Again I think you are confusing the nuance. And it's not that they can't see red and green, it's that they can't tell the difference. It's not blindness by absence.

Logged

But, uh...well there it is."Nothing's a struggle, but everything is a challenge"-AnonHate Is Weakness